How to Determine Normalization Factor for Wavefunction with Exponential Decay?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the normalization factor for a wavefunction with an exponential decay, specifically the wavefunction \(\Psi = Ax^2 e^{-\alpha x}\) for \(x > 0\). Participants are exploring the normalization condition and the associated integral.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the normalization condition but expresses difficulty with the resulting integral. Some participants suggest using integration by parts and the gamma function as potential approaches to simplify the calculation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing methods to evaluate the integral. Some have shared their calculations and findings, while others are verifying the results and expressing concerns about potential errors in their approaches. There is a collaborative effort to clarify the process without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of previous experiences with similar problems involving complex exponentials, which may influence participants' expectations regarding the normalization process. Additionally, some participants note that certain terms in the integral will approach zero as \(x\) approaches infinity, which may affect the evaluation.

raintrek
Messages
68
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I'm trying to determine a normalization value, A, for the following wavefunction:

[tex]\Psi = Ax{^2}exp(-\alpha x)}, x>0[/tex]
[tex]\Psi = 0, x<0[/tex]

In the past, I've had an i term in my exponential, so when applying the Normalization Condition:

[tex]\int|\Psi(x)|^2 dx = \int\Psi{^*}(x) \Psi(x) dx[/tex]

the exponentials always multiply to equal one, leaving me with an easy route to getting the normalization factor.

However in this case, I'm left with the following integral:

[tex]\int|\Psi(x)|^2 dx = \int A{^2}x{^4}exp(-2\alpha x)} dx[/tex]

...which seems horrible!

Can anyone advise what I'm doing wrong here? I'm sure there's a simpler way...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This looks OK.

Have you ever seen tabular integration by parts?
 
No, you're doing in the right way. Just do your integral by parts now.

You can use the gamma function to do it faster.
 
Last edited:
George Jones said:
This looks OK.

Have you ever seen tabular integration by parts?


Never...

I tried it in an online integrator and got a horrendous answer so assumed I'd gone drastically wrong somewhere...
 
raintrek said:
Never...

I tried (maybe not very successfully) to explain it http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.math/msg/ebd6104dfcc6263c?dmode=source".

I tried it in an online integrator and got a horrendous answer so assumed I'd gone drastically wrong somewhere...

Most of the terms will be zero; remember, as [itex]x \rightarrow \infty[/itex], an exponential dominates any power of [itex]x[/itex].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, I think I've followed that George Jones;

[tex]\int|\Psi(x)|^2 dx = \int A{^2}x{^4}exp(-2\alpha x)} dx[/tex]

Which, using your method, I get to be:

[tex]exp(-2\alpha x) \left(-\frac{x{^4}}{2\alpha} + \frac{x{^3}}{\alpha{^2}} - \frac{3x{^2}}{2\alpha{^3}} + \frac{3x}{2\alpha{^4}} - \frac{3}{4\alpha{^5}} \right)[/tex]


Which I *think* leads to [tex]\frac{3A{^2}}{4\alpha{^5}} = 1[/tex] or [tex]A = \sqrt{4/3}\alpha{^\frac{5}{2}}[/tex]

Would someone be able to verify that? I'm paranoid about this being wrong now!
 
Seems good, from my calculation, as I arrive, too, at
[itex]1=\frac{3A^2}{4\alpha ^5}[/itex]

by two differents methods (that is, by the use of the gamma function and with the long method of integration by parts).
 
Last edited:
Awesome, thanks for your help George Jones and Erythro73!

That technique is awesome - I'll definitely be using it again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K